Saturday, April 28, 2012

Hot
rods, a barbecue and other "fun in the sun" activities are in the works
as American Legion Post 99 swings into spring with its first "Rockin'
Rods Car Show & BBQ" that's scheduled for May 12 from 11 a.m. to 3
p.m.

The post is at 1344 Dell Ave. in Campbell and has more than
300 members representing veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam,
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The car show and barbecue are open to
everyone and admission is free. Don't forget your wallet, however,
because the vets will be passing around a combat boot, looking for
donations to help fund programs and events it sponsors at the Veterans
Hospital in Menlo Park.

Staying on veterans but moving to disabled veterans, Mary E. O'Leary (Register Citizen) reports on the case of 18-year veteran Carmen Cardona who has been attempting to get spousal benefits since 2010 but has been denied because she is legally married to a woman. Filing friend of the court briefs on behalf of the veteran is both Vietnam Veterans of America and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Also having a stake in the outcome is the state of Connecticut, where Cardona was married, which argues it's "a constitutional issue, citing the 10th amendment as protecting its right as a stae to determine who can legally marry". LGBTQ Nation quotes Service Women's Action Network's Anu Bhagwati who states, "Service women were disproportionately impacted under 'Don't Ask,
Don't Tell' and it is disheartening to see women still experiencing
systematic discrimination even after repeal. The Cardona case illustrates that there is still tremendous work to
be done to end discrimination against LGBT service members and
veterans."

IAVA Demands Accountability As VA Underreports Mental Health Care DelaysPresident,
VA Secretary Shinseki Silent as Inspector General reports VHA Mental
Health Records had “No Real Value” in Tracking Care for Injured VeteransNEW YORK—Today, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America (IAVA), the nation’s first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization representing veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
released the following statement expressing outrage over an alarming new
report
from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Inspector General. The report
concluded that veterans’ wait times for mental health care far exceed
that which the VA has previously reported and the VA’s mandates.
According to the Inspector General’s findings, for veterans who did not
receive evaluations within 14 days, the average wait for a first
evaluation was 50 days—nearly two months. Additionally, 71% of frontline
mental health staffers said in an informal VHA survey that in their
opinion their facilities did not have adequate mental health staff to
meet current demand for care.“This Inspector General’s report
should outrage all Americans. Only 49 percent of veterans received a
full evaluation within 14 days of their first contact for mental health
care—despite VA claims that rate was 95 percent. It shows the entire
country how broken the VA mental health care system is when the
Inspector General calls the VA’s own data of “no real value.” Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans and veterans of all generations deserve straight
talk from VA Secretary Shinseki on this misrepresentation. The VA is
failing to meet its own mandates, and leaving too many veterans’ lives
hanging in the balance. For example, veterans have to wait 19 days on
average for appointments to see a psychiatrist in Denver, but as many as
80 days at the Spokane VA. If you had a chest wound or broken leg, you
wouldn’t have to wait that long to see a doctor. As suicide rates
skyrocket, the same standards of attention and care should apply to
veterans seeking help for invisible wounds,” said IAVA Founder and
Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff.“Right now, the VA is facing a
serious gap in trust and leadership. Our veterans deserve accountability
from the top down. Only half of IAVA members recently surveyed think
that the VA is doing a good job of reaching out to troops and veterans
about mental health injuries and care. We hear frequently from IAVA
members across social media about the bureaucratic delays that they
face—and how they’re just giving up. Meanwhile, VA Secretary Shinseki
has yet to come forward to publicly address this crisis of confidence.
It’s absolutely critical that he and VA leadership work quickly and
effectively to rebuild this trust. But IAVA can’t be the only loud voice
on this issue, and our community needs to see bold action and
accountability from the President too. All veterans deserve a dynamic
21st century VA system that is responsive to their needs from the day
they get home from war through the rest of their lives. IAVA stands
ready to work with the President, Department of Veterans Affairs and
Congress to make this an immediate reality, so veterans of all
generations get the care they need and deserve.”In March 2012, IAVA unveiled a new partnership with the Veterans Crisis Line (1-800-273-8255)
to provide more IAVA members with free, immediate confidential crisis
support 24/7 in their toughest moments of need. For more on IAVA’s VCL
partnership and complete analysis on the Inspector General’s
recommendations for improving VA mental health care access, click here.To
arrange an interview with IAVA Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff,
Deputy Policy Director Tom Tarantino, or an IAVA Member Veteran impacted
by delays at the Department of Veterans Affairs, please contact
Michelle McCarthy, 212.982.9699, michelle@iava.org. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org)
is the country's first and largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has more than
200,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Its mission
is to improve the lives of this country's newest generation of veterans
and their families.

Army medic Ryan Russell died in 2007 while aiding wounded soldiers in Iraq.Now his namesake will spend his life helping a former medic heal from the psychic wounds he suffered in Iraq.Doc
Russell, an 11-month-old golden retriever, is a psychiatric service
dog. Doc lives with Ray Kirby, a Lexington man who served in Iraq in
2003. Doc stays at Kirby’s side, nuzzling him when Kirby starts
suffering anxiety attacks, barking and licking his hand when nightmares
take over Kirby’s sleep.Doc’s job is to give Kirby a sense of peace and normalcy.

(Washington D.C.) – U.S. Senator Patty Murray,
Chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, released the following
statement today after President Obama signed an executive order that takes
action against deceptive practices targeting educational benefits for
servicemembers and veterans. Senator Murrayrecently
introduced similar legislation that increases transparency in
order to help VA educational beneficiaries make informed decisions about the
schools they attend so they get the most out of their GI Bill benefits. The bill
would also require that VA and DoD to develop a joint policy to curb aggressive
recruiting and misleading marketing aimed at servicemembers and veterans using
the GI Bill.

“I’m pleased that the President is moving
aggressively to help us give servicemembers and veterans the tools they need to
make good decisions about utilizing the GI Bill benefit. Given the sad truth
that there are those looking to take advantage of our student-veterans, it’s
critical that we give our servicemembers and veterans the resources they need to
make decisions that will ultimately affect the quality of the education they
receive and the jobs they get after graduation. I look forward to working with
the President to ensure that our student-veterans can realize the full promise
of the GI Bill Benefit.”

Friday, April 27, 2012

Friday, April 27, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the prosecution says they don't have to establish that Bradley Manning's actions resulted in any harm to go after him, the political crisis continues in Iraq, a State of Law flunky disses Biden, and more.

Starting in the US where perceived whistle blower Bradley Manning and his defense have been in pre-court martial hearings this week. The judge has issued a ruling. AP reports Col Denise Lind announced yesterday that she would not toss "aiding the enemy" allegation the government has made against Bradley.

Monday April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released US military video of a July 12, 2007 assault in Iraq. 12 people were killed in the assault including two Reuters journalists Namie Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh. Monday June 7, 2010, the US military announced that they had arrested Bradley Manning and he stood accused of being the leaker of the video. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported in August 2010 that Manning had been charged -- "two charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The first encompasses four counts of violating Army regulations by transferring classified information to his personal computer between November and May and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system. The second comprises eight counts of violating federal laws governing the handling of classified information." In March, 2011, David S. Cloud (Los Angeles Times) reported that the military has added 22 additional counts to the charges including one that could be seen as "aiding the enemy" which could result in the death penalty if convicted. The Article 32 hearing took place in December. At the start of this year, there was an Article 32 hearing and, February 3rd, it was announced that the government would be moving forward with a court-martial.

Manning's attorney, David Coombs, argued that the charge should be dropped for two reasons. First, the prosecution failed to show intent in the way the charge is worded, he argued. Second, Coombs said, the charge is so vague and broad that it's unconstitutional.

Coombs argued the charge is "alarming in its scope." He told the judge that if he accepted the government's argument, "no soldier would ever be comfortable saying anything to any news reporter." Coombs said they could even be charged after posting something on a family member's Facebook page.

Trent Nouveau (TG Daily) notes that Maj Ashden Fein, prosecutor for the United States government, states that the government isn't required to prove that any damage took place, "Just because a damage assessment might say damage did occur or didn't occur, it's completely irrelevant to the charges. That tomorrow's effect is somehow relevant to the charges on the crime sheet is irrelevant."

That's certainly a curious take on the law. If there's no injury, what's the point? If Bradley Manning is guilty -- he's thus far entered no plea -- and there were huge damages, the judge would certainly be encouraged by the prosecution to keep that in mind. The government has not only declared him guilty -- that includes US President Barack Obama who truly does not know the law if he thought pronouncing the accused guilty before a trial was how a president conducts themselves -- they've insisted repeatedly that tremendous damage was done.

Having used that to drive the press coverage, the government now wants to claim that the level of damage -- if any -- doesn't matter? The court-martial has been set for September 21st. The Center for Constitutional RightsMichael Ratner retweets:

In Iraq, violence continues. Erik West (Australian Eye) reports an Abu Garma home invasion in which 3 children (ages ten to fifteen) were shot dead along with their mother when a killer or killers broke into the home around three in the morning.

KUNA notes that Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States, met with Hussein al-Shahristani, deputy prime minister for energy, yesterday at the White House and that Biden "reaffirmed U.S. commitment to work with Iraqi leaders from across the spectrum to support the continued development of Iraq's energy sector." While Joe was making nice, al-Shahristani was showing his ass. Alister Bull (Reuters) explains, "A simmering dispute between Iraq's central government and the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan is an internal affair, a top Baghdad official said on Thursday, in an implicit rebuff of U.S. efforts to broker a compromise between the two sides."

Thursday Erbil witnessed what some news outlets are calling a historic moment. Press TV reports on Moqtada al-Sadr's visit to the KRG to meet with KRG President Massoud Barzani and the press conference Moqtada held in Erbil. They quote him stating, "I came here to listen to their (Kurds') points of view (on issues related to Iraq's political situation). In fact, I adovcate getting closer to the Iraqi people and protecting the Iraqi people before protecting our parties and blocs. All sides have to pay attention to the public interest and the Iraqi people. The oil of Iraq is for the people and no one has the right to claim it for himself and exclude others. . . . Dialogue is the only solution to end former and current political disputes and all other issues." Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) notes, "During talks with Kurdish President Massoud Barzani yesterday, Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr mandate insisted that there would be no support for an overthrow of the government, but he did suggest the possibility of not renewing Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's mandate as premier. Barzani and Sadr have both called Maliki a dictator in recent weeks, and the increasingly marginalized Sunnis mostly agree with them." At Foreign Policy, journalist James Traub examines Nouri al-Maliki:

Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, has a remarkable ability to make enemies. As Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group puts it, "Personal relations between everyone and Maliki are terrible." This gift was vividly displayed in March, when the annual meeting of the Arab League was held in Baghdad. Although the event was meant to signal Iraq's re-emergence as a respectable country after decades of tyranny and bloodshed, leaders of 10 of the 22 states, including virtually the entire Gulf, refused to attend out of pique at Maliki's perceived hostility to Sunnis both at home and abroad, turning the summit into a vapid ritual. The only friend Iraq has left in the neighborhood is Shiite Iran, which seems intent on reducing its neighbor to a state of subservience.

[. . .]

But one can be agnostic about Maliki's motivations and still conclude that he is doing harm to Iraq's own interests. No sensible Iraqi leader would pick a fight with Turkey, as he has done. Back in January, when Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, suggested that Maliki should not be waging war against the Sunni opposition at home, Maliki accused Turkey of "unjustified interferences in Iraqi internal affairs," adding for good measure that Erdogan was seeking to restore Turkey's Ottoman hegemony over the region. This in turn led to another escalating round of insults and a mutual summoning of ambassadors.

Moqtada was attempting to address the ongoing political crisis. Briefly, March 2010 saw parlimentary elections. State of Law (Nouri al-Maliki's slate) came in second to Iraqiya (led by Ayad Allawi). Nouri did not want to honor the vote or the Constitution and refused to allow the process to move forward (selecting a new prime minister). Parliament was unable to meet, nothing could take place. This is Political Stalemate I and it lasted for over eight months. In November 2010, Political Stalemate I finally ended. What ended it?

The US-brokered Erbil Agreement. This was a written document where everyone made concessions and everyone got something out of it. Nouri got to be prime minister. He was loving the Erbil Agreement then. And as soon as he was named prime minister-designate, he began demonstrating he wouldn't honor the Erbil Agreement. He had called for a referendum and census on Kirkuk for December 2010. He was supposed to have done that by the end of 2007. But he refused to even though Article 140 of the Constitution demanded it. But as he was trying to get everyone to agree to the Erbil Agreement, he was trying to appear resonable and scheduled the referendum and census. After being named prime minister desisngate, he called off the census and referndum. It's still not taken place all this time later. He was also fully on board with the idea of an independent national security commission and it being headed by Ayad Allawi. But then he got named prime minister-deisgnate and suddenly that was something that couldn't be created overnight but would take time. 17 months later, it's still not happened.

Nouri used the Erbil Agreement to get a second term as prime minister and then trashed the agreement. He used everyone's concession to him but refused to honor his concessions to them.

This is Political Stalemate II, the ongoing political crisis in Iraq and, no, the political crisis in Iraq did not start December 19th or 21st as Nouri went after political rivals from Iraqiya (Iraqiya came in first in the 2010 elections). From Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace):

Within days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.

But there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of 2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon, Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.

Kitabat reports Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani declared today in Karbala that the Erbil Agreement should be published. The Ayatollah noted that there are disputes about whether or not it was implemented. He says the way to end the dispute is to publish the agreement and that the people can then decide for themselves whether the agreement was carried out, whether or not it was Constitutional*, whether or not it represented the best interests of Iraq. The agreement and the Constitution? There's nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Erbil Agreement. There's also nothing in the Constitution that bars the Erbil Agreement. The White House and the State Dept examined that at length before it was put into writing. They brokered the agreement and did so to end the eight-month-plus gridlock (Political Stalemate I). The agreement is clearly extra-constitutional and we warned about that in real time. But it is not forbidden by the Constitution. After getting what he wanted from the agreement, Nouri and his lackeys began to insist that it couldn't be honored because it was unconstitutional. It's not. If it is unconstitutional then the Parliament needs to vote on a PM because they haven't freely done that, they've allowed Nouri to become prime minister-designate (and then prime minister) in spite of the Constitution. An argument can be made that the only known aspect of the Erbil Agreement that might be unconstitutional would be Nouri being PM since the Constitution is specific on how you become prime minister designate (Nouri didn't meet those qualifications and he knows it, that's why he implemented the eight month stalemate) and since it is specific on how you then move to prime minister.

For those who've forgotten, a prime minster-designate is judged to be competent to be prime minister by forming a Cabinet in 30 days. That is nominating the people and get the Parliament to vote on each one. A Cabinet is a Cabinet. The Constitution doesn't allow for half Cabinets or partials. Nouri was unable to name a full Cabinet in 30 days (actually more than 30 -- as usual Jalal Talabani broke the Constitution for Nouri thereby allowing him more than 30 days). The Constitution is clear that if you do not form a Cabinet in 30 days, a new person is picked to be prime minister-designate.

Nouri failed. Among the posts empty when he was wrongly and unconstitutionally moved to prime minister were all three of the security posts. He had no Minister of the Interior, no Minister of Defense and no Minister of Natioanl Security.

For those who want to claim that a full Cabinet wasn't what was intended, that's a flat out lie. The Constitutionw as written in 2005, not 80 years ago, not 100. There is only one requirement to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister: building your Cabinet.

And for those who still can't grasp that this means every seat, every post, then at least have the brains -- if not the integrity -- to grasp that there is no way in hell that the Constitution ever intended for Minister of the Defense (army) or Minister of Interior (police) to be empty posts.

When Nouri refused to announce them in December 2010, "critics" (so labeled by the press) turned out to be prophets. They stated that Nouri wouldn't fill them in the next few weeks (as the press claimed), they siad it was a power grab. All this time later, these posts are still not filled.

Which is why Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com), reporting on Moqtada's visit to Erbil, observes, "Removing Maliki could be harder than it seems, however, as he is not only the prime minister but the acting Interior Minister, Defense Minister, National Security Minister and chief of military staff. This gives him de facto control over the entire national army and police force."

Massoud Barzani has stated that a solution must be arrived at by the start of September (or the Kurds may include choices on the ballots of their provincial elections). Barzani, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi are calling for a national conference to address the political crisis. Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi tells AFP, "We could enjoy a prime minister from the Shiite national alliance on the ground that he is committed to power sharing ... and he keeps all Iraqis equally according to the constitution. This is all what we are dreaming, this is all what we are looking for."

Turning to the United States . . .

Senator Jon Tester: There is a stigma in this country -- and probably in the world

-- but definitely in America, in the United States, attached to mental health

issues -- injuires. There are -- I have multiple stories about folks who won't

go get treatment because they're afraid it wll be on their record, of afraid they

won't be able to get a job, afraid it might impact the job they do have,

perception by family, friends, colleagues. Does the VA have an active education

pogram to try to reach out to those folks, to let them now that this part of --

this is -- as Major General [Thomas S.] Jones says, it's increasing, it's present,

it's growing and it's not uncommon. Is there -- Is there some kind of education or

outreach going on?

William Schoenhard: Yeah. Yes, Senator. There's Make The Connection

Initiative that has just been undertaken. I think it gets back to the primary

care integration of mental health where we're able to screen for PTSD. And

the other aspect of care that we haven't mentioned today is the vet centers --

Senator Jon Tester: Yes.

William Scoenhard: -- who are also ways veterans can approach for help if they

have -- for whatever reasons -- reluctance to access the traditional system.

That's from Wednesday's Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. Appearing before the Committee was the Dept of Veterans Affairs' William Schoenhard and Mary Schoh, Iraq War veteran Nick Tolentino who testified about what he observed while working for the VA, Outdoor Odyssey's retired Major General Thomas Jones and VA's Office of Inspector General was represented by Linda Halliday and John Diagh. Four senators participated including Committee Chair Patty Murray, acting Ranking Member Scott Brown, Senator Jon Tester and Senator Jerry Moran. What was the hearing about?

Chair Patty Murray: Today's hearing builds upon two hearings held last year. At each of the previous hearings, the Committee heard from the VA how accessible mental health care services were. This was inconsistent with what we heard from veterans and the VA mental health care providers. So last year, following the July hearing, I asked the Department to survey its own health care providers to get a better assessment of the situation. The results as we all now know were less than satisfactory. Among the findings, we learned that nearly 40% of the providers surveyed could not schedule an appointment in their own clinic for a new patient within the 14 days. Over 40% could not schedule an established patient within 14 days of their desired appointment. And 70% reported inadequate staffing or space to meet the mental health care needs. The second hearing, held in November, looked at the discrepancy between what the VA was telling us and what the providers were saying. We heard from a VA provider and other experts about the critical importance of access to the right type of care delivered timely by qualified mental health professionals. At last November's hearing, I announced that I would be asking VA's Office of Inspector General to investigate the true availability of mental health care services at VA facilities. I want to thank the IG for their tremendous efforts in addressing such an enormous request. The findings of this first phase of the investigation are at once substantial and troubling. We have heard frequently about how long it takes for veterans to get into treatment and I'm glad the IG has brought those concerns to light.

Even though the Veterans Health Administration reported in 2011 that 95 percent of veterans received a comprehensive mental exam within 14 days of requesting one (the time frame in agency policy), the actual number was 49 percent, the inspector general reported this week. It took an average of 50 days to provide a full evaluation for the rest, the report said. "VHA does not have a reliable and accurate method of determining whether they are providing patients timely access to mental health care services," the inspector general said.Part of the problem is with the way records are kept: Schedulers don't always follow the rules, and the lag between referral by a primary care physician and the evaluation might not be reflected properly.Part of the problem is a shortage of personnel, particularly psychiatrists. Officials knew the data-keeping was problematic; the inspector general pointed it out in reports in 2005 and 2007.They also knew of the growing staffing needs and, in fact, increased personnel 46 percent from 2005 to 2010, the report said. But in an informal survey of VA mental-health professionals, requested by Congress, 71 percent of those responding said their centers didn't have enough people to keep up. A veteran seeking treatment at the VA medical center in Salisbury, N.C., for instance, had to wait 86 days to see a psychiatrist, the IG said.

We covered the hearing in Wednesday's snapshot. Kat offered her take and conclusions in "Fire everyone at the VA." Ava covered it at Trina's site with "Scott Brown: It's clearly not working (Ava)" and what she emphasized was the exchange between Brown and Schoenhard with Brown growing more and more irritated at Schoenhard who did not want to answer questions and did not want to own the problem. From Ava's report, this is when Brown tried to get answers as to why there were delays in care but referrals outside the VA were not being utilized.

Again, it had long ago been established that only 2% had been referred out last year. But Schoenhard wanted to insist on top of the referral issue that the VA was providing veterans with immediate care.

Before we go further, grasp that the IG report already demonstrated that Schoenhard's claim was false. Grasp that.

Senator Scott Brown: But they're not. But they're not.

William Schoenhard: They should be.

Senator Scott Brown: But they're not. But they're not!

William Schoenhard: We have an obligation to be sure that they are.

Senator Scott Brown: But they're not!

Then Schoenhard wanted to argue that the VA can provide the best care.

Brown's other big issue was that the country's in a fiscal nightmare. And yet the VA -- which has had one scandal after another -- is handing out bonuses.

There's been the failure to send out the GI Bill checks. There's the alarming suicide rate of veterans. There's lying about the time wait for appointments. We could go on and on. So the point is, bonuses are being handed out.

You might not think it's a big deal. Do you know how much the VA gave out last year in bonuses?

Remember this is on top of the salary and wages they paid. In 2011, Brown noted that the VA paid out $194 million in bonuses. Nearly $200 million dollars. Brown asked what the average salary was for someone receiving a bonus and the VA's William Schoenhard wanted to take that for the record.

On top of that, Schoenhard felt the VA deserved credit for keeping the number so low. Brown was shocked and asked if Schoenhard was saying that in years prior to 2011 over $200 million was paid in bonuses? Yep.

Again, only four Committee members were present. Moran used his time mainly, as he noted, to allow someone to talk about a program that was working -- a non-VA program. Since I didn't note Moran Wednesday, we're going to include a little of that today.

Senator Jerry Moran: Part of my interest in this topic is coming from a state as rural as Kansas in which our access to mental health professionals is perhaps even more limited than more urban and suburban states. And we need to take advantage of the wide array of professional services that are available at every opportunity. And so I'm here to encourage you -- now that you've made that announcement, let's bring it to fruition. And thank you for reaching the conclusion and getting us to this point. I want to direct my question to General Jones. I thank you very much for your Semper Fi Odyssey efforts. I had a Kansan visit with me in the last month who has organized a program -- I don't know whether it's modeled after what you're doing -- it's the same kind of focus and effort. And it's somewhat related to the conversations and questions of Senator Tester about the stigma or lack of willingness to admit that one needs help, the lack of knowledge of what programs are available, how to connect the veteran with what's there. I wanted to give you the opportunity to educate me and perhaps others on what it is that you've been able to do to bring that veteran who is not likely to know of the existence of your program or programs like yours. And, secondly, what can be done to overcome the reluctance of military men and women and veterans to access what is available -- such as your program.

Major General Thomas Jones: Thank you, sir. Well first off, I think that the Semper Fi Fund that I've been a board member of is -- provides the ability for these veterans to come. Admittedly, most of the veterans that come back to the case workers of Sempre Fi Fund have some problems or they wouldn't be there. I mean, they've had a difficult time making the transition. So when they arrive in western Pennsylvania for one of the weeklong sessions, they arrive with a major degree of skepticism and very tentative and we try to restore them to what was really the strength of their experience in the Marine Corps: the team, the cohesion, team building and basially restoring their trust. I would say -- trust in the system and trust in others. I think my work through the Semper Fi Odyssey because of the mental health professionals that have come in and really bought into the program and really advertised the program and allowed me to speak to other groups led me to a project I'm doing with the Institute of Defense Analysis, sponsored by OSD, that looks at best practices. So, you know, I was a Marine for a long time, we never talked much about mental health issues until recently. As a Vietnam platoon commander, we never talked about it. But now there are programs in the Marine Corps and I would say the army too -- Comprehensive Soldier Fitness in the army; Marine Corps' program is Operational Stress Control and Readiness. It's a great program. But it's not easy to overcome the stigma and the program really rests on the strength of the NCO. No Major General's going to ride into a Marine Corps squad or platoon or company and build immediate trust. It's going to come from the NCO. So overcoming that skepticism, that chasm of trust, is difficult but it's happening -- especially those units that have deployed four and five times, young NCOs, young officers are seeing the power of what a squad leader or a platoon commander can do to identify problems when they're still in the category of combat stress injuries and haven't migrated to combat stress illnesses. I think that's the strength of the Marine Corps program. I think the problem -- this is only my opinion now -- of the army program is that it's very well built, the application is not focused on the young NCO as is the Marine Corps program. And I don't say it because I'm a Marine. I just sense that the NCO identifying in Iraq or Afghanistan, if there's a problem, you can start the dialogue right then, you can start the reconciliation process right then. You don't have to wait six months after he returns and he's got this problem in his mental wall locker and he pulls out then when he's by himself. So we try to restore and very successfuly restore because all these veterans have come in and actually volunteered their services.

So in one form or another, the above and the work by Kat, Ava, Wally and the Wednesday snapshot have covered the bulk of the points raised in the hearing.

My time in country left me with traumas and exposures no human should see or be a part of. It also created an environment in which hazing and death threats were part of my ritual coming from my NCO. Without knowing it, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) soon became my reality and at 18 I started to lose control of my life. Shortly after my return my best friend Daniel Parker died in Iraq. I was the lead pallbearer for his military funeral. After losing Daniel, I felt I lost everything. I struggled with lack of family and support upon my return and found Daniel's death, combined with my PTSD, set me over the edge. I tried getting help from my command. I spoke with my NCOs in charge and even a Sgt from another platoon. I couldn't take the harassment from my NCO both in country and at home, topped with PTSD and the loss of my best friend. With lack of help I began to drink and numb my pain. My suicidal ideation grew and I began to lose sight of who I was. I ended up going UA (unauthorized absence) with suicide in mind.When I was brought back to base by Marine Corps Chasers I soon found myself in the brig again with no help from my command. I was left to deal with PTSD in a cell, like a POW. After a couple months in the brig I was court martialed and given a Bad Conduct Discharge. All I needed was help, I never wanted out.After being discharged, I was released from duty and sent on my way. Here I was a combat vet, a kid, just left out on the street to fend for myself. Not once did I get mental health treatment. It took me two years after my discharge to finally figure out I had PTSD. It took me doing my own research, trying to help myself, to put all the pieces together from symptoms I was showing. It hurt having to do it alone.

And then Collier got help, right? Wrong. That's when he begins a long struggle to get the treatment he needs. That involved the VA, getting a discharge upgrade and much more. His experience and wanting to assist in others in the same situation led to his founding No Soldier Left Behind.

Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal, Executive Vice President Kathy Spillar, and Chair of the Board Peg Yorkin issued the following joint statement on the announcement that Board Member Dolores Huerta will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom:

The Feminist Majority Foundation and its board salutes our colleague and friend Dolores Huerta for all of her historic achievements for social justice and equality. We are very proud that she will be awarded by President Barack Obama the highest civilian award.

In response to the announcement, Chair of the Board Peg Yorkin said, "No one deserves this honor more than Dolores Huerta. She has worked tirelessly on behalf of those who work the farm fields of this country and has been an incredible advocate for women and girls' empowerment."

President Eleanor Smeal said, "For some 25 years, we have worked very closely with Dolores Huerta in our fight for women's equality, civil rights, and worker's rights. Dolores is an inspiration to all of us at all times. She is dedicated to win equality for women in the state house and Congress and she has significantly increased the number of Latina women running for office."

Executive Vice President Kathy Spillar praised Dolores' work, saying, "It has been my great honor to work with Dolores for nearly 25 years to empower women and girls and secure our fundamental rights. I have learned enormously through her example. Despite the hardship she has seen and the difficulties she has endured, she is the single most optimistic person I have ever known. There is nothing that can't be done when Dolores Huerta is involved."

Press TV reports on Moqtada al-Sadr's visit to the KRG yesterday to meet with KRG President Massoud Barzani and the press conference Moqtada held in Erbil. They quote him stating, "I came here to listen to their (Kurds') points of view (on issues related to Iraq's political situation). In fact, I adovcate getting closer to the Iraqi people and protecting the Iraqi people before protecting our parties and blocs. All sides have to pay attention to the public interest and the Iraqi people. The oil of Iraq is for the people and no one has the right to claim it for himself and exclude others. . . . Dialogue is the only solution to end former and current political disputes and all other issues."

Moqtada was attempting to address the ongoing political crisis. Briefly, March 2010 saw parlimentary elections. State of Law (Nouri al-Maliki's slate) came in second to Iraqiya (led by Ayad Allawi). Nouri did not want to honor the vote or the Constitution and refused to allow the process to move forward (seleting a new prime minister). Parliament was unable to meet, nothing could take place. This is Political Stalemate I and it lasted for over eight months. In November 2010, Political Stalemate I finally ended. What ended it?

The US-brokered Erbil Agreement. This was a written document where everyone made concessions and everyone got something out of it. Nouri got to be prime minister. He was loving the Erbil Agreement then. And as soon as he was named prime minister-designate, he began demonstrating he wouldn't honor the Erbil Agreement. He had called for a referendum and census on Kirkuk for December 2010. He was supposed to have done that by the end of 2007. But he refused to even though Article 140 of the Constitution demanded it. But as he was trying to get everyone to agree to the Erbil Agreement, he was trying to appear resonable and scheduled the referendum and census. After being named prime minister desisngate, he called off the census and referndum. It's still not taken place all this time later. He was also fully on board with the idea of an independent national security commission and it being headed by Ayad Allawi. But then he got named prime minister-deisgnate and suddenly that was something that couldn't be created overnight but would take time. 17 months later, it's still not happened.

Nouri used the Erbil Agreement to get a second term as prime minister and then trashed the agreement. He used everyone's concession to him but refused to honor his concessions to them.
This is Political Stalemate II, the ongoing political crisis in Iraq and, no, the political crisis in Iraq did not start December 19th or 21st as
Nouri went after political rivals from Iraqiya (Iraqiya came in first
in the 2010 elections). From Marina Ottaway and Danial Kaysi's [PDF
format warning] "The State Of Iraq" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace):

Within
days of the official ceremonies marking the end of the U.S. mission in
Iraq, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved to indict Vice President
Tariq al-Hashemi on terrorism charges and sought to remove Deputy Prime
Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq from his position, triggering a major political
crisis that fully revealed Iraq as an unstable, undemocractic country
governed by raw competition for power and barely affected by
institutional arrangements. Large-scale violence immediately flared up
again, with a series of terrorist attacks against mostly Shi'i targets
reminiscent of the worst days of 2006.

But
there is more to the crisis than an escalation of violence. The tenuous
political agreement among parties and factions reached at the end of
2010 has collapsed. The government of national unity has stopped
functioning, and provinces that want to become regions with autonomous
power comparable to Kurdistan's are putting increasing pressure on the
central government. Unless a new political agreement is reached soon,
Iraq may plunge into civil war or split apart.

Bad and lazy reporting wants to pretend the crisis started in December 2011. That's not reality. Reality is more bad news for Nouri. Kitabat reports Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani declared today in Karbala that the Erbil Agreement should be published. The Ayatollah noted that there are disputes about whether or not it was implemented. He says the way to end the dispute is to publish the agreement and that the people can then decide for themselves whether the agreement was carried out, whether or not it was Constitutional*, whether or not it represented the best interests of Iraq. The agreement and the Constitution? There's nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Erbil Agreement. There's also nothing in the Constitution that bars the Erbil Agreement. The White House and the State Dept examined that at length before it was put into writing. They brokered the agreement and did so to end the eight-month-plus gridlock (Political Stalemate I). The agreement is clearly extra-constitutional and we warned about that in real time. But it is not forbidden by the Constitution. After getting what he wanted from the agreement, Nouri and his lackeys began to insist that it couldn't be honored because it was unconstitutional. It's not. If it is unconstitutional then the Parliament needs to vote on a PM because they haven't freely done that, they've allowed Nouri to become prime minister-designate (and then prime minister) in spite of the Constitution. An argument can be made that the only known aspect of the Erbil Agreement that might be unconstitutional would be Nouri being PM since the Constitution is specific on how you become prime minister designate (Nouri didn't meet those qualifications and he knows it, that's why he implemented the eight month stalemate) and since it is specific on how you then move to prime minister.

For those who've forgotten, a prime minster-designate is judged to be competent to be prime minister by forming a Cabinet in 30 days. That is nominating the people and get the Parliament to vote on each one. A Cabinet is a Cabinet. The Constitution doesn't allow for half Cabinets or partials. Nouri was unable to name a full Cabinet in 30 days (actually more than 30 -- as usual Jalal Talabani broke the Constitution for Nouri thereby allowing him more than 30 days). The Constitution is clear that if you do not form a Cabinet in 30 days, a new person is picked to be prime minister-designate.

Nouri failed. Among the posts empty when he was wrongly and
unconstitutionally moved to prime minister were all three of the
security posts. He had no Minister of the Interior, no Minister of
Defense and no Minister of Natioanl Security.

For those who want to claim that a full Cabinet wasn't what was intended, that's a flat out lie. The Constitutionw as written in 2005, not 80 years ago, not 100. There is only one requirement to move from prime minister-designate to prime minister: building your Cabinet.

And for those who still can't grasp that this means every seat, every post, then at least have the brains -- if not the integrity -- to grasp that there is no way in hell that the Constitution ever intended for Minister of the Defense (army) or Minister of Interior (police) to be empty posts.

When Nouri refused to announce them in December 2010, "critics" (so labeled by the press) turned out to be prophets. They stated that Nouri wouldn't fill them in the next few weeks (as the press claimed), they siad it was a power grab. All this time later, these posts are still not filled.

Which is why Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com), reporting on Moqtada's visit to Erbil, observes, "Removing Maliki could be harder than it seems, however, as he is not
only the prime minister but the acting Interior Minister, Defense
Minister, National Security Minister and chief of military staff. This
gives him de facto control over the entire national army and police
force."

If you were waiting this morning, sorry. We had an early speaking thing and I wasn't able to do two entries. So this one is late. My apologies.

On June 5, 2011, CeCe
McDonald, an African American transgender woman, was assaulted by Dean
Schmitz, a white heterosexual man, and his friends in a violent, racist,
and transphobic attack. In the face of extreme violence causing her
serious physical injury, Ms. McDonald defended herself. The Hennepin
County Attorneys’ Office refuses to recognize her right to self-defense,
and instead is prosecuting her for two counts of second degree murder
for the death of Schmitz. If Ms. McDonald is found guilty of either
count, she could be imprisoned for up to 40 years.The night of the attack, Schmitz and his crowd began yelling racist,
homophobic, and transphobic slurs at Ms. McDonald and four of her
friends, calling them “niggers,” “fags,” “chicks with dicks,” and
rapists wearing women’s clothes as they walked past Schooner Tavern in
south Minneapolis. An altercation ensued when one of the white women
with Schmitz smashed a liquor glass in Ms. Mc Donald’s face, causing
serious injury. Witnesses reported that Ms. McDonald had turned away
and was leaving the altercation when Schmitz followed her in an
aggressive, hostile fashion. Schmitz was subsequently stabbed with a
pair of scissors in the chest and bled to death at the scene. Although
Ms. McDonald claims she acted in self-defense and despite criminal
conduct on the part of many in the crowd, including the white woman who
struck Ms. McDonald in the face, Ms. McDonald was the only person
arrested and criminally charged.This is not the first time Schmitz has expressed racist and
transphobic sentiments or engaged in violence. He was a proud racist
who had a swastika tattooed on his chest and had previously been
convicted of assaulting his fourteen year old daughter, his
ex-girlfriend, and his ex-girlfriend’s father.Ms. McDonald’s fear for her life was more than reasonable and stems
in part from the severe and deadly violence transgender women of color
face at alarming rates across the United States. The National Coalition
of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) reported in 2010 that people who
identified as transgender or of color experienced assault or
discrimination two times more often than non-transgender, white
individuals, and transgender women made up 44% of the hate-motivated
murders reported that year (a disproportionately high percentage in
comparison to the percentage of transgender women in the overall
population). In the past month alone, three transgender women of color
have been murdered in Chicago, Detroit and Miami.The criminal legal system has been unable to deter this deadly
violence plaguing transgender women of color, but it continues to
further criminalize and punish those who are the targets of such
violence. LGBTQ people, particularly those of color, consistently
report that law enforcement officials punish them, rather than their
assailants, when they are victims of violence. This dynamic guided the
case of the New Jersey 7, where seven African American lesbians were
prosecuted, charged and ultimately convicted after they were assaulted
by a heterosexual man in the West Village, who claimed he was the victim
of a “heterosexual hate crime.” The police and prosecutors failed to
properly investigate the incident and the women were presumed to be
guilty based on their race, sexual orientation and gender non-conforming
appearance. They were framed in the media as “killer lesbians,” “a
seething Sapphic septet,” and a “lesbian wolf pack” who engaged in “gang
violence.” (See http://www.incite-national.org/media/docs/9908_toolkitrev-nj7.pdf and http://www.amyewinter.net/nj4/).Notably, in the past year the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has
used its discretion to decline to prosecute in no less than three cases
where victims killed their assailants while engaging in self-defense,
yet it continues its campaign against Ms. McDonald.The NLG Queer Caucus, Anti-Racism Committee, Anti-Sexism Committee
and the United People of Color Caucus (TUPOCC) question the legitimacy
and fairness of Ms. McDonald’s criminal investigation and prosecution in
light of endemic racism and bias against gender non-conforming people
in the criminal legal system.We demand that Michael Freeman, the Hennepin County Attorney, dismiss
the charges against CeCe McDonald in the interest of justice. The NLG
Queer Caucus, Anti-Racism Committee, Anti-Sexism Committee and the
United People of Color Caucus (TUPOCC) call on those who support Ms.
McDonald to contact Michael Freeman and urge him to drop the charges by
calling him at 612-348-5540, faxing him at 612-348-2042 or emailing him
at citizeninfo@co.hennepin.mn.us.For more information on the case, visit http://supportcece.wordpress.com/The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) was founded in 1937 and is the
oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the
United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has members in
every state.

My time in country left me with traumas
and exposures no human should see or be a part of. It also created an
environment in which hazing and death threats were part of my ritual
coming from my NCO. Without knowing it, PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) soon became my reality and at
18 I started to lose control of my life.
Shortly after my return my best friend
Daniel Parker died in Iraq. I was the lead pallbearer for his
military funeral. After losing Daniel, I felt I lost everything. I
struggled with lack of family and support upon my return and found Daniel's death, combined with my PTSD, set me over the edge.
I tried getting help from my command. I
spoke with my NCOs in charge and even a Sgt from another platoon.
I couldn’t take the harassment from my NCO both in country and at
home, topped with PTSD and the loss of my best friend.
With lack of help I began to drink and numb my pain. My suicidal
ideation grew and I began to lose sight of who I was. I ended up
going UA (unauthorized absence) with suicide in mind.When I was brought back to base by
Marine Corps Chasers I soon found myself in the brig again with no
help from my command. I was left to deal with PTSD in a cell, like a
POW. After a couple months in the brig I was court martialed and
given a Bad Conduct Discharge. All I needed was help, I never wanted
out.After being discharged, I was released
from duty and sent on my way. Here I was a combat vet, a kid, just
left out on the street to fend for myself. Not once did I get mental
health treatment. It took me two years after my discharge to finally
figure out I had PTSD. It took me doing my own research, trying to
help myself, to put all the pieces together from symptoms I was
showing. It hurt having to do it alone.

And then Collier got help, right? Wrong. That's when he begins a long struggle to get the treatment he needs. That involved the VA, getting a discharge upgrade and much more. His experience and wanting to assist in others in the same situation led to his founding No Soldier Left Behind. Last March, Salem-News.com reported on Vietnam Veterans of America's report on the Defense Dept's claiming service members suffered from Personality Disorder to discharge them and hide their PTSD (to avoid paying the benefits owed the service member):

Since 2008, the Department of Defense (DoD) has
illegally discharged hundreds of veterans on the alleged basis of
personality disorder (PD), denying them veterans’ benefits, according to
a Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) analysis of newly disclosed records
released today. The analysis further concludes that since Fiscal Year
(FY) 2002, the Navy has discharged the most service members on this
basis in absolute terms (7735), and in FY 2006 the Air Force set a
military record for the Afghanistan and Iraq era when PD discharges
accounted for 3.7 percent of all airmen being discharged (1114 of 29,498
service members).

PD can be used as the illegal basis for incorrectly
discharging veterans suffering from Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). The DoD considers PD a
preexisting condition, and a PD diagnosis renders veterans ineligible
for several benefits.

“On a veteran’s discharge paperwork it states clearly,
‘discharged for personality disorder,’ and not only does it keep
veterans from benefits they may have earned, but it is one of the first
things that prospective employers see. Anyone who sees the veteran’s
DD-214 can determine the reason for discharge. ” said Paul Barry,
President of VVA Chapter 120, Hartford, Connecticut.

“Shame on the Department of Defense,” said Dr. Thomas
J. Berger, VVA Executive Director for the Veterans Health Council. “It
acknowledged the widespread illegality of these discharges and changed
its rules going forward but has left 31,000 wounded warriors alone to
fend for themselves, denied even basic medical care for their injuries.”

In 2008, Congress directed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate illegal personality
discharges. The Congressional pressure prompted new DoD regulations, but
VVA has found that illegal personality disorders continued through FY
2010, and that since 2007, the total number of PD discharges has
increased at least 20 percent, according to documents released under one
of two pending VVA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits.

In a document obtained by the FOIA lawsuit, a Navy
report on 2008-2009 PD discharges noted that only “8.9 percent [of PD
discharges] were processed properly. …This does not paint a pretty
picture.”

Additionally, VVA analysis of DoD documents uncovered a
two-fold rise in Adjustment Disorder (AD) discharges in the United
States Air Force from FY 2008 to FY 2010 that may signal that AD
discharges have now become a surrogate for PD discharges.

Aaron Smith (CNNMoney) observes, "The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs expects to spend $57 billion on
disability benefits next year. That's up 25% from $46 billion this year,
and nearly quadruple the $15 billion spent in 2000, before the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan began."

Even though the Veterans Health Administration reported in 2011
that 95 percent of veterans received a comprehensive mental exam within
14 days of requesting one (the time frame in agency policy), the actual
number was 49 percent, the inspector general reported this week. It took
an average of 50 days to provide a full evaluation for the rest, the
report said. "VHA does not have a reliable and accurate
method of determining whether they are providing patients timely access
to mental health care services," the inspector general said.
Part of the problem is with the way records are kept: Schedulers don't
always follow the rules, and the lag between referral by a primary care
physician and the evaluation might not be reflected properly.
Part of the problem is a shortage of personnel, particularly
psychiatrists. Officials knew the data-keeping was problematic; the
inspector general pointed it out in reports in 2005 and 2007.
They also knew of the growing staffing needs and, in fact, increased
personnel 46 percent from 2005 to 2010, the report said. But in an
informal survey of VA mental-health professionals, requested by
Congress, 71 percent of those responding said their centers didn't have
enough people to keep up. A veteran seeking treatment at the VA medical
center in Salisbury, N.C., for instance, had to wait 86 days to see a
psychiatrist, the IG said.

A certan New York paper should read it very closely to discover how you focus on issues and details that matter as opposed to using an editorial supposedly on veterans issues to work through your own partisan grudge.

The following community sites -- plus Tavis Smiley, Adam Kokesh, Antiwar.com, Susan's On The Edge and CSPAN -- updated last night and this morning:

(Lansing) The Board of State Canvassers
approved the sufficiency of the signatures on the petition submitted by Stand Up
for Democracy attempting to repeal the Emergency Manager Law, Public Act 4. The
projection of 203,238 valid signatures far exceeds the 161,305 required to put
the measure on the ballot. However, the measure today was kept off the ballot by
the group Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, claiming it is invalid on a small
technicality, effectively silencing the voice of the majority of Michiganders.

The
Green Party of Michigan, and especially those members of the strong branch in
Detroit, have been watching this process with much anticipation. “The Green
Party has long taken a stance for Grassroots Democracy and Decentralization, two
concepts challenged by the current Emergency Manager Law.” Stated John A. La
Pietra, elections coordinator for the Green Party of Michigan.

After
a period during which challenges to the validity of the signatures may be
brought before the Board of Canvassers, a sampling of the signatures was
determined to be almost 90% accurate and no challenges were made to the validity
of the signatures themselves. Other challenges were made as to wording and
omissions in the petition, but those were rejected in a "memorandum of law" from
Bureau of Elections chief Christopher Thomas. One challenge outstanding which
could foil the entire effort was confirmed as within the scope of the Board’s
authority. Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility submitted a challenge to the form
of the petition, claiming that the typeface of the heading was smaller than the
14-point size required by law.

The
petitioners and printer both signed affidavits which state that the typeface did
indeed conform, but the challenge is still being argued before the Board of
Canvassers. According to the memorandum, the “petitions need only substantially
conform to the statutory requirements”. Even if it is determined that the
typeface is a point or two smaller than the law requires, the legal standard
still favors the signers. Whenever there is a close question, the law likewise
favors the signers. As the Court of Appeals states: “[A]ll doubts as to
technical deficiencies or failure to comply with the exact letter of procedural
requirements in petitions . . . are resolved in favor of permitting the people
to vote and express a choice on any proposal subject”.

Despite
the deference the standard seems to allow the signers, the Board today was split
along party lines: 2-2. Because of this, the measure is kept off the ballot in
November - for now.

We
encourage Stand Up for Democracy to continue to work for the citizens of
Michigan who agree that the Emergency Manager law strips them of their voice in
government. We likewise hope the court of appeals will consider the case
carefully and to give deference to over 200,000 voters instead of the
trivialities brought up by a minority of voices.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.